Lens ?

I shoot on a 300D with the 18-55 non IS kit lens and almost 100% landscape shots. The camera and lens were given to me by my dad when he received his new T1i. He never used the 18-55 lens that came with the 300D so when I first started to shoot with it I noticed that all of my pictures have 3 very distinct smudges or large artifacts. Come to find out it is a blemish internally with the lens. So now I am looking for new lens. I looked at all the images I have taken so far and they manly range between 18mm and 41mm with a very slight few in the 50mm and a couple in the 60mm and 85mm (from when I was shooting with a 28-135mm IS). Based upon my range that I obviously like to shoot at, is it safe to say that the 17-40 L lens would be a good choice and would it be an obvious upgrade from the 18-55 non IS in terms of IQ. I am a little concerned because I have looked on this forum and am seeing that the 17-40 lens is indeed a great lens but not at its extremes (17mm and 40mm). Because 7 out of 10 times I am shooting between 18 and 33mm would this put me in a good sweet spot for this lens? Thanks and I apologize in advance for the newbie question.

Are the smudges there when you use the 28-135 lens? Make sure of this, as smudges in your images are not often caused by debris in/on a lens. More often it is debris on the camera's sensor (actually the anti-aliasing filter right in front of the sensor).

Check your images carefully. Borrow another lens from your Dad if you need to. Shoot a clear (cloudless) blue sky or a blank mono-colored wall for a test. If you see the same stuff with more than one lens, come back and we'll help you with the next step. I doubt that you'll need a new lens.

Yes the smudges are there only with the 18-55 lens and not with the 28-135. And actually when you peer into the optics of the 18-55 you can visually see some type of blemish that is indeed inside of the lens. The only way that it went undetected is that my dad literally did not use this lens one time after purchasing the 300D.

there are a number of good choices. The 18-55mm image stabilized Canon would be the least expensive. For more money you should consider the Tamron 17-50mm f:2.8 (the non-vibration controlled model). Both will be better than your current lens. The Tamron has a larger maximum lens opening which can help in low light situations.

Get a 18-55 IS... it is much better than the older versions. Only around $100 used/refurbished.

Thanks. How does the Tamaron 17-50 stack up against the 17-40 L lens? I would rather put the money into a really really good lens now then have to either try and sell a lens to get a good one in the near future, otherwise I would purchase a 18-55 IS that someone didn't really want. Do you think the IQ on the new 18-55 is all that better than the non IS version?

I don't have the Tamron anymore, but shooting crop sensor there was never a time I would choose the 17-40 over the Tamron 17-50.

The 18-55 IS is very much better than the older 18-55s owing in large measure to the change made to the rearmost element group.

The 17-40L is the best alternative for you in my opinion.

With the prices of the 18-55 IS in the $75-$100 range, is the 17-40 $600 better? So what about this...$700 for a 17-40 L lens or swap my 300D for a T1i with a 18-55 IS for $700, or do a canon loyalty program swap for a 50D for $669 + $100 for a 18-55 IS? Which one would you do.

I would get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

Stopped down to f/4 it should be just as good (sharpness anyways) as the 17-40L, plus you have the option of f/2.8

I think the only reason I have not tried that lens yet is because I want a f/2.8 zoom in that range with IS (now waiting on the Sigma to be released). The Sigma 24-60 I bought cause it was a crazy good deal and I'm keeping it because it will work on full frame. I have owned the 18-55IS and it was a nice lens for the price! The Canon loyalty program looks tempting, I would consider it!

Thanks for your advice...I am torn on whether to get better glass for my 300D or spend almost the same amount of money for a T1i or 50D with a better lens (18-55 IS)?

How long have you been shooting, do you feel the 300D is limiting you in any ways? If you are primarily shooting landscape shots in lower ISOs that's a pretty basic function that any DSLR can do quite well. Unless you want to do larger prints or something and would like the extra megapixels, then why not stick with the 300D? Glass is the more important thing, I would rather have my old Rebel XTi/400D over my new 40D and have better glass. The 18-55IS is not a bad lens however, you could get that along with an ultra wide (Sigma 10-20- around $400, for example) and that would give you even more opportunities for landscape.

I have been shooting for about 2 years. I don't think the 300D is limiting me. However seeing that I have a problem with my 18-55 lens and need to purchase a replacement I want my $ to go as far as they can the first time. My 300D is printing 11x14, 12x18, and 16x20 with no problems at all. The lab where I send the prints were actually very very surprised that they came off of a 300D (6.3mp) and either a 18-55 non IS or sometimes I use my dad's 28-135 IS. But if you are thinking that better glass on my 300D instead of mediocre glass on a new body would be better then I guess that's the ticket. The 17-50 Tamron 2.8 is imaged stabilized so maybe that's the way I will go instead of the 17-40 L glass?

The Tamron comes in 2 versions, the non-stabilized version which has been proven to be an excellent lens (around $400), and the new VC (Vibration control) version which still has quite mixed reviews (around $600-650).

The 17-40L is an excellent lens but it's more suited for a full frame camera as an ultra wide, on crop body it is more of a standard zoom which is neither fast in aperture, doesn't have IS, and it doesn't have a large focal range (ie 15-85mm). It's a good sharp lens with good color/contrast and the "L" build but there are alot of other lenses that will give you more for bang for the buck for a crop sensor.

Have you thought about the addition of an ultra wide, since you shoot mostly in the wide range?

If you mostly shoot landscapes, get a Tokina 11-16 and a Canon 18-55 IS. It's a great lens when paired with good light or a flash.